Given recent Middle East horrors, can someone put this in perspective?

[deltex1]

Words of the next POTUS?..

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a conceit of the Left. If we just talk more and understand each other then we can work it all out.
But what do you do when you finally understand that nutjobs like Iran are only interested in regional hegemony? Or you come to an understanding that Russia is bent on worldwide domination and sees us as obstacles?
Obama has said over and over "Civilized nations dont do X in the 21st century." And then they do just that. Leaving him looking agape.
They are completely misguided. And that's being charitable. We see what 6 years of that approach has brought us in foreign policy.

 

[deltex1]

As usual the Libtards are mute when PIAPS speaks.

 

[whitehall]

Liberal Washington Post Columnist Dana Milbank quipped "Hillary has lost that new car smell". The meaning is clear. Hillary has not only lost traction but she is now just a face in the crowd. A speech by Hillary in Georgetown University was so poorly attended that it has become a symbol of her dive into obscurity.

 

[Mr. H.]

This is a conceit of the Left. If we just talk more and understand each other then we can work it all out.
But what do you do when you finally understand that nutjobs like Iran are only interested in regional hegemony? Or you come to an understanding that Russia is bent on worldwide domination and sees us as obstacles?
Obama has said over and over "Civilized nations dont do X in the 21st century." And then they do just that. Leaving him looking agape.
They are completely misguided. And that's being charitable. We see what 6 years of that approach has brought us in foreign policy.

You forgot to mention Obama's red lines.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is anyone else impressed at how fast the authorities in the Middle East apprehended that woman in the murder of the school teacher? Even posting the footage of the raid for the public to see.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Words of the next POTUS?..

Know your enemies little man, they are killing you for a reason.

And there are two way to defeat an enemy: kill him or turn him into a friend.

 

[deltex1]

Words of the next POTUS?..

Know your enemies little man, they are killing you for a reason.

And there are two way to defeat an enemy: kill him or turn him into a friend.

Typical girly man response from P M S. Who have we "turned into a friend" GERTRUDE?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Words of the next POTUS?..

Know your enemies little man, they are killing you for a reason.

And there are two way to defeat an enemy: kill him or turn him into a friend.

Typical girly man response from P M S. Who have we "turned into a friend" GERTRUDE?

Case in point. Making peace is seen as weakness, fuck whatever Jesus said.

Europeans don t do this US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[hazlnut]

Words of the next POTUS?..

Context is everything, dopey.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is a conceit of the Left. If we just talk more and understand each other then we can work it all out.
But what do you do when you finally understand that nutjobs like Iran are only interested in regional hegemony? Or you come to an understanding that Russia is bent on worldwide domination and sees us as obstacles?
Obama has said over and over "Civilized nations dont do X in the 21st century." And then they do just that. Leaving him looking agape.
They are completely misguided. And that's being charitable. We see what 6 years of that approach has brought us in foreign policy.

Why is acceptable for the USA to be the defacto head of the world, but any other nation wanting equal power or to have similar capabilities isn't?

Don't see Iran invading its' neighbors or dropping bombs on anyone. That's a uniquely American activity (and of late, Russia.) Yet Iran's the 'bad guys?'

 

[hazlnut]

As usual the Libtards are mute when PIAPS speaks.

Because every time you copy/paste something from Drudge or Breitfart, we could give a flying fuck.

 

[TooTall]

This is a conceit of the Left. If we just talk more and understand each other then we can work it all out.
But what do you do when you finally understand that nutjobs like Iran are only interested in regional hegemony? Or you come to an understanding that Russia is bent on worldwide domination and sees us as obstacles?
Obama has said over and over "Civilized nations dont do X in the 21st century." And then they do just that. Leaving him looking agape.
They are completely misguided. And that's being charitable. We see what 6 years of that approach has brought us in foreign policy.

Why is acceptable for the USA to be the defacto head of the world, but any other nation wanting equal power or to have similar capabilities isn't?

Don't see Iran invading its' neighbors or dropping bombs on anyone. That's a uniquely American activity (and of late, Russia.) Yet Iran's the 'bad guys?'

Iran doesn't have to drop bombs or invade it's neighbors. They pay someone else to do it for them.

By Terry Atlas May 30, 2013 7:18 PM ET

"In its annual lreport on terrorism issued yesterday, the State Department reported a “marked resurgence” in terrorist-related activities last year by Iran, which also is supplying weapons and other “extensive” aid to the Syrian regime for its war against rebel groups.

The State Department cited activities by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, and its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah.

“Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism and Hezbollah’s terrorist activity have reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa,” according to the State Department.

Iran Increases its Support for Terrorism U.S. Says - Bloomberg

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is a conceit of the Left. If we just talk more and understand each other then we can work it all out.
But what do you do when you finally understand that nutjobs like Iran are only interested in regional hegemony? Or you come to an understanding that Russia is bent on worldwide domination and sees us as obstacles?
Obama has said over and over "Civilized nations dont do X in the 21st century." And then they do just that. Leaving him looking agape.
They are completely misguided. And that's being charitable. We see what 6 years of that approach has brought us in foreign policy.

Why is acceptable for the USA to be the defacto head of the world, but any other nation wanting equal power or to have similar capabilities isn't?

Don't see Iran invading its' neighbors or dropping bombs on anyone. That's a uniquely American activity (and of late, Russia.) Yet Iran's the 'bad guys?'

Iran doesn't have to drop bombs or invade it's neighbors. They pay someone else to do it for them.

By Terry Atlas May 30, 2013 7:18 PM ET

"In its annual lreport on terrorism issued yesterday, the State Department reported a “marked resurgence” in terrorist-related activities last year by Iran, which also is supplying weapons and other “extensive” aid to the Syrian regime for its war against rebel groups.

The State Department cited activities by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, and its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah.

“Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism and Hezbollah’s terrorist activity have reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa,” according to the State Department.

Iran Increases its Support for Terrorism U.S. Says - Bloomberg

"Increases its Support for Terrorism U.S. Says"

Consider the source. Especially consider how the US is doing exactly what we condemn others for doing, but on a massive scale.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a conceit of the Left. If we just talk more and understand each other then we can work it all out.
But what do you do when you finally understand that nutjobs like Iran are only interested in regional hegemony? Or you come to an understanding that Russia is bent on worldwide domination and sees us as obstacles?
Obama has said over and over "Civilized nations dont do X in the 21st century." And then they do just that. Leaving him looking agape.
They are completely misguided. And that's being charitable. We see what 6 years of that approach has brought us in foreign policy.

Why is acceptable for the USA to be the defacto head of the world, but any other nation wanting equal power or to have similar capabilities isn't?

Don't see Iran invading its' neighbors or dropping bombs on anyone. That's a uniquely American activity (and of late, Russia.) Yet Iran's the 'bad guys?'

Because we have the largest economy in the world
Because we aer the world's sole super power
Because we have a history of intervening to stop injustice, even against our own interests.

But even so your post is not responsive to mine, which deals with the conceit of the Left that everyone else really thinks just like they do.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Words of the next POTUS?..

Know your enemies little man, they are killing you for a reason.

And there are two way to defeat an enemy: kill him or turn him into a friend.

What , You not gonna offer a nob job to em to leave you alone??

What a pathetic joke...................

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Words of the next POTUS?..

Know your enemies little man, they are killing you for a reason.

And there are two way to defeat an enemy: kill him or turn him into a friend.

What , You not gonna offer a nob job to em to leave you alone??

What a pathetic joke...................

Americas only strategy, kill it. Cutting a deal never occurs to them, that would be weakness.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

This is a conceit of the Left. If we just talk more and understand each other then we can work it all out.
But what do you do when you finally understand that nutjobs like Iran are only interested in regional hegemony? Or you come to an understanding that Russia is bent on worldwide domination and sees us as obstacles?
Obama has said over and over "Civilized nations dont do X in the 21st century." And then they do just that. Leaving him looking agape.
They are completely misguided. And that's being charitable. We see what 6 years of that approach has brought us in foreign policy.

Why is acceptable for the USA to be the defacto head of the world, but any other nation wanting equal power or to have similar capabilities isn't?

Don't see Iran invading its' neighbors or dropping bombs on anyone. That's a uniquely American activity (and of late, Russia.) Yet Iran's the 'bad guys?'

Someone has to be "the" world leader, it is a natural pecking order and has been since creation. One has to be supreme,why not the USA. We believe in democracy and christian ethics, why would we take a back seat to any other.

The old adages of "If you ain't the lead dog all you see is ass holes" and "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." Why be a follower, when you can be a leader.
Now if we don't exert our influence on the world, vacuums will be left and bad guys will fill the void. The results will be much worse with inattention than by handling matters in a reasonable and prudent manner!!

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Americas only strategy, kill it. Cutting a deal never occurs to them, that would be weakness.

You mean like that fucked up deal where we got that faggot Bergdahl back for 4 GITMO detainee's??
No we never deal .................fucking moron

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

By the way paint, just because it is so easy to help you show your ignorance, I wanted to help make you out to be totally ignorant, so I dug up a little "research".
Next time do a little and you will not look totally fucking stupid!!

[Excerpt]
Prisoner Exchanges
A Short Look Back in History
By Patrick Long
Share this

Never forgotten. Official Air Force Photo
You’ve seen it if you follow the news – the swap of five Taliban fighters for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, with all the various exclamations of outrage pro and con, and ranting about the conditions of Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture.

Despite it all, though - President Obama’s decision to make the trade was not really a departure from history or U.S. law. But I’m not going to get into whether I think it was necessarily a good decision, nor what I may or may not think of Sgt. Bergdahl (don’t know him, never met him). I’m just going to take a look at the past, and see what I find… starting with the beginning of our country.

During the American Revolutionary War (1775–83), exchanges of prisoners were made in the field or at higher levels of organization - usually high-ranking officer exchanges were negotiated for specifically named people. There were also some exchanges based on numbers for random lower-ranking people, but these were on a more limited basis.

During the War of 1812, a provisional agreement was amended and accepted (Cartel for the exchange of prisoners of war between Great Britain and the United States of America) that addressed prisoner exchanges.

According to the History Channel, in the first year of the Civil War (1861 to 1865), prisoner exchanges were conducted primarily between field generals on an ad hoc basis after battles - the Union being reluctant to enter any formal agreements, fearing that it would legitimize the Confederate government.

However, on December 11, 1861, the US Congress passed a joint resolution calling on President Lincoln to "inaugurate systematic measures for the exchange of prisoners in the present rebellion."

In July 1862, Union General John Dix and Confederate General Daniel H. Hill reached an agreement in which each soldier was assigned a value according to rank. For example, one private was worth another private; corporals and sergeants were worth two privates; and lieutenants were worth three privates. A commanding general was worth 60 privates. Under this system, thousands of soldiers were exchanged rather than languishing in prisons like those in Andersonville, Georgia, or Elmira, New York.

The National Archive has Records of the Commissary General of Prisoners. Record Group 249 - which is dated for 1861-1905 – has a note that the Records of the Commissioner for the Exchange of Prisoners is listed as being 4 linear feet. (“normal” file cabinet capacity is about 2 linear foot per drawer)

During WWII (1939 to 1945), Americans were swapped in the exchange of prisoners between Germany and the United States.

During the Cold War, spy swaps were quite common practice - the most well-known (or at least, well-publicized) being that of American U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers released by the Soviets in exchange for Soviet Colonel Rudolf Abel, a senior KGB spy.

February 1986 - Soviet dissident Anatoly Shcharansky (now Natan Sharansky) was swapped for Communist spies arrested in the West in 1984: Karl Koecher and Hana Koecher.

In 2010, the United States and Russia conducted the biggest spy swap since Cold War - ten alleged Russian spies that had been arrested in the US were traded for four detainees convicted of espionage in Russia.

Beyond those found on Amazon and similar sites (for example, Mercy Ships: The Untold Story of Prisoner-of-War Exchanges in World War II), there have been various publications on the topic of Prisoners of War (including prisoner exchanges). For example:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET NO. 20-213: HISTORY OF PRISONER OF WAR UTILIZATION By the UNITED STATES ARMY 1776-1945

Congressional Report, “PRISONERS OF WAR: REPATRIATION OR INTERNMENT IN WARTIME - American and Allied Experience, 1775 to Present”.
[/Excerpt]